MEETING MINUTES IT C - University of Cincinnati · Blue Ash Web, Feb 18, 12 to 1 p.m., 100 Walters...

Project Management Office

UC Information Technologies (UCIT) University of Cincinnati

PO Box 210658 Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0149

Suite 400, University Hall

51 Goodman Drive (513) 556-9089

MEETING MINUTES IT COUNCIL

DATE: JANUARY 28, 2015

TIME: 8:00 PM TO 9:30 PM

LOCATION: UNIVERSITY HALL, ROOM 420

CHAIR: NELSON VINCENT

2

CALL TO ORDER

Nelson Vincent welcomed the members.

Attending: Tracy Herrmann, John Hutton, Cecily Goode, Chris Edwards, Jane Combs, Mark

Faulkner, Anton Harfmann, Jeremy Martin, Diana Noelcke, Erma Fritsche, Beth McGrew,

Nelson Vincent, Bob Ambach, Daniel Traicoff, Christina Beer, Bogdan Vykhovanyuk

Apologies: Bill Ball, Richard Miller, Robert Rokey

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Nelson asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Daniel Traicoff motioned to approve; several

members seconded; the committee voted to accept the minutes with no changes.

BUSINESS

IT Council Schedule and Process – Nelson Vincent

Nelson asked the committee to review the IT Council calendar and information submission dates

for 2015.

All agreed to accept the new process and adhere to the dates.

IT@UC Welcomes The Ohio Supercomputer Center and OARnet

UC will host colleagues from OARnet and the Ohio Supercomptuer Center (members of the Ohio

Technology Consortium) on Friday, January 30. The day’s events include opportunities to learn

about current and explore future technology collaborations to further research, commercialization,

workforce and economic opportunity in Ohio.

Session topics include:

o Partnerships for Workforce Development

o Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC) Cloud HPC Services

o Research Directory Follow-Up

o Partnerships for Simulations & Virtual Environments

A reception will be held at the Kingsgate Conference Center at the end of the day.

Catalyst Update – Cecily Goode

The Catalyst steering committee and project team are pleased to present the rollout schedule for

the new Catalyst student information system. After in-depth system fit/gap, conversion,

integration and development analyses, the initial schedule spanning from May 2015 through

January 2016 has been extended. The final rollout schedule is May 2015 to March 2016.

http://www.uc.edu/catalyst/project-rollout-schedule

Dates to remember:

o Catalyst Town Hall: Monday, Feb 16, 8:30 to 9:30 a.m., TUC, Great Hall

o Insider Access: Catalyst, Academic Structure

Medical Campus, Tue Feb 3, 12 to 1p.m.,Vontz Center

Uptown Campus Wed Feb 4, 12 to 1 p.m., 400B TUC

Clermont Wed Feb 11, 12 to 1 p.m., S142 Snyder

Blue Ash Web, Feb 18, 12 to 1 p.m., 100 Walters

http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/provost/docs/committees/ITCouncil/IT%20Council%20Calendar.pdf

http://www.uc.edu/catalyst/project-rollout-schedule

3

Data Center Task Force (DCTF) II Update - Megan Pfaltzgraff/Diana Noelcke

The Task Force is considering co-location and private cloud as options.

A consultant is joining the team as a co-sponsor.

A subcommittee, led by Mark Faulkner and Dom Ferreri, developed an assessment tool that

allows comparisons for Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for options.

State of Ohio Supercomputer Center (SOCC) Project Update – Diana Noelcke

Phase I of the UC-SOCC Project will be completed in February. This includes faculty/staff email

system and Exadata, which will support the new student information system, Catalyst.

The project is providing opportunities to build new partnerships with the state offices.

Once completed, it will also allow UC to provide business continuity for nine CORE Systems and

connect UC’s researchers to Ohio’s 100 Gigabits per second high-speed network.

eClassroom Committee Update – Diana Noelcke

Phase 1 work will focus on centrally scheduled classrooms; Phase II will create a set of

recommendations for college-owned classrooms.

The committee plans to establish baseline standards for eClassrooms based on size and type of

room.

Centrally scheduled classroom equipment has been inventoried (report posted to Box@UC).

The committee is reviewing the 2015 Design Guidance for Classroom report from UC Architect.

Classrooms will be evaluated and rated using the EDUCAUSE Learning Space Rating System

(LSRS).

A survey was created to solicit input from the university community. The survey was sent to:

o Associate Deans

o Faculty Senate

o Undergraduate Student Association

o Graduate Student Association

o IT Managers Topical Committee

Committee membership includes regional campus representation.

Tracy Herrmann will send Diana three names to add to the committee to represent Faculty Senate.

IT Council members suggested adding members from colleges who support their own

classrooms.

Creative funding models need to be developed to build and sustain classrooms.

This is an opportunity to review east and west campus scheduling models for centrally scheduled

classrooms.

504/508 Compliance Update – Mark Faulkner

UC has signed an official Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, Office

of Civil Rights (OCR). UC is among the first universities in the nation to be reviewed, which is

an opportunity to lead 504/508 accessibility compliance.

504/508 laws impact university processes for how we contract, purchase and implement

technology.

UC will have to have continuous reporting to OCR once policies and procedures are developed.

Full compliance will require systemic changes to university business, significant investments of

https://uc.app.box.com/files/0/f/2602068009/e-classroom_committee

http://www.educause.edu/eli/initiatives/learning-space-rating-system

http://www.educause.edu/eli/initiatives/learning-space-rating-system

4

both tools and personnel resources to ensure a collaborative and comprehensive approach to

accessibility.

Ronald Rateau is the new Accessibility Coordinator; the new Chief Risk Officer is Anita Ingram.

IT Council received draft Electronic Information Technology (EIT) Accessibility policy and an

EIT Purchasing policy for review and input.

Topical Committee Updates

Co-chairs submitted their written reports but the meeting ended before they could provide

updates.

Nelson suggested structuring the meeting next month to have topical committee updates on the

agenda first.

ACTION ITEMS

Tracy Herrmann to send Diana Noelcke three names from Faculty Senate for eClassroom

Committee.

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 9:33 AM.

2015 REGULAR MEETING CALENDAR

Regular Meeting Dates Notification of Agenda Items and Meeting Materials Due to the Office of the CIOCIO

Packets Emailed to IT Council

Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2015 Thursday, Feb. 19, 2015 Monday, Feb. 23, 2015

Wednesday, March 25, 2015 Thursday, March 19, 2015 Monday, Mar. 23, 2015

Wednesday, April 22, 2015 Thursday, April 16, 2015 Monday, Apr. 20, 2015

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 Thursday, May 21, 2015 Monday, May 25, 2015

Wednesday, June 24, 2015 Thursday, June 18, 2015 Monday, June 22, 2015

Wednesday, July 22, 2015 Thursday, July 16, 2015 Monday, July 20, 2015

Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2015 Thursday, Aug. 20, 2015 Monday, Aug. 24, 2015

Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2015 Thursday, Sept. 17, 2015 Monday, Sept. 21, 2015

Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2015 Thursday, Oct. 22, 2015 Monday, Oct. 26, 2015

Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2015 Thursday, Nov. 19, 2015 Monday, Nov. 23, 2015

Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2015 Thursday, Dec. 17, 2015 Monday, Dec. 21, 2015

Project Management OfficeUC Information Technologies (UCIT)

University of CincinnatiPO Box 210658

Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0149

Suite 400, University Hall51 Goodman Drive

(513) 556-9089

PROJECT CHARTER

Data Center Task Force II

12/01/2014

Project Charter


1

Contents PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................................. 2

PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Project Description ................................................................................................................................... 2

Project Purpose and Goals ....................................................................................................................... 2

Business Case ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Related Documents and Materials .......................................................................................................... 3

Project Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Critical Success Factors ............................................................................................................................. 4

Project Assumptions and Constraints ...................................................................................................... 4

Project Risks .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Project Deliverables and High Level Timeline ......................................................................................... 4

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................................................................... 5

Project Sponsors ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Project Co‐Chairs ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Project Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................... 6

Communication Strategy ......................................................................................................................... 7

SPONSOR APPROVALS .................................................................................................................................. 8

Project Charter


2

PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT

The Project Charter represents a commitment to dedicate the necessary time and resources to the project. It formalizes the existence of the project and demonstrates management support for it. The purpose of the Project Charter is:

To provide an understanding of the project, the reason it is being conducted and its justification;

To establish early on in the project the general scope and,

To establish team members’ roles and responsibilities

To define project deliverables and a high level timeline

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Project Description

The Data Center Task Force I (DCTF I) was completed in April 2014. A report was sent to the Board of Trustees which included multiple short term (1‐3 years) and mid‐term (3‐10 years) recommendations. The DCTF I initially planned to make a recommendation on a new data center but determined the biggest risk to UC was business continuity. Therefore, the charge of the second task force is to create a New Data Center Proposal. This task force has invited multiple institutions into the discussion on co‐locating (build or buy) a data center. The following institutions were invited:

1. Xavier University – Accepted invitation 2. Cincinnati State Technical and Community College – Accepted invitation 3. UC Health – Accepted invitation 4. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital – Declined invitation 5. Mount St. Joseph University – Declined invitation

These institutions will jointly identify the site, space and hardware requirements for a co‐located data center.

Project Purpose and Goals

The purpose of this task force is to identify the site, space, security, hardware and location requirements

for a co‐located data center for build or buy. The data center should be designed via a modular

approach allowing the center to ‘grow as you go’. This will prevent overbuilding the data center.

The key project goal is for each institution to make a recommendation to their leadership teams

regarding a new data center by July, 2015.

Business Case

All of the participating institutions have concerns and issues with their current data centers. The issues revolve around age, location, power, and equipment. Each institution would benefit from a co‐located data center as it will provide an economies of scale as they will all share in the cost to build or buy and

Project Charter


3

maintain a new data center. Data Centers are becoming increasing smaller due to modular technologies that are reducing space requirements. This trend is expected to continue.

UC has made recent changes to their data center, a new UPS has been installed and a temporary connection to the CARE generator has been established. The current data center has power risks that cause an issue when applying for grants. UC needs dual power and a larger generator. The solution time frame is 3‐5 years.

UC Health is currently looking for a new data center as their current center is over 15 years old. They would like a 15 year solution. Solution time frame is 2‐5 years.

Xavier University’s data center is also 15 years old. At times, Xavier has issues with cooling the data center. The main issue is the data center is located in a building that is scheduled for extinction. Solution timeframe is 2‐5 years.

Cincinnati State Technical and Community College has built a new campus in Middletown where they have located storage replication and a backup of their ERP system. Their main data center is more of a file server room located in a converted classroom with a raised floor. It is also 15 years old with a single power source and a generator. The aging equipment is their main concern.

Related Documents and Materials

All pertinent documents, Charter, meeting agendas and minutes, scope matrix, designs, etc. will be

stored on Box. All members of the project team have been given access to Box.

Project Scope

The project scope defines project limits and identifies the products and/or services delivered by the

project. The scope establishes the boundaries of the project and should describe products and/or

services that are outside of the project scope.

Project Includes:

Identify requirements of a new data center for each institution

Identify site location for new data center or co‐location (build or buy) options Create Reference Designs for the new data center Define infrastructure equipment specifications for the new data center

Estimate of costs for each institution for each option Establish Joint Governance for the new data center Evaluate build versus buy options

Project Charter


4

Critical Success Factors

Critical Success Factors are outcomes that must be achieved in order for the project to be considered a success. On this Project, the success factors are:

Formal Data Center Findings to leadership teams by July, 2015

Assuring that all institutions time frame and requirements are vetted and can be met by the proposed recommendation

Defining Joint Governance of the co‐located data center Appropriate Senior Management buy‐in throughout the project

Project Assumptions and Constraints

Assumptions can affect any area of the Project including scope, stakeholders, business objectives and requirements. Assumptions made in defining this Project are:

The network connection will be via the CERF ring The appropriate staffing requirements will be met for build or buy options as defined by each

institution

All institutions will share in the cost of staffing the data center, if required, at a rate to be defined and agreed upon by all parties

Tier III data center for build or buy Each institution will be responsible for their migration strategy to the new data center Each institution will be responsible for their own Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Plan

The following key constraints have been identified as limitations and boundaries for the Project Team in

their decision making:

Each institution has separate budgets and approval processes

HIPPA, FISMA, FERPA, ADA, NSF, PCI DSS regulations must be met

Project Risks

The risks identified on this project are:

For UC, a single point of failure exists at the internet access point at HPB Points of high voltage risk from Power Plant to G95 Coordination of project buy‐in from the respective leadership at each institution as they each

have their own reporting structures and policies. Institutional budget constraints

An institution decides to withdraw from participation in the data center after the findings have been presented to each institutions leadership

Project Deliverables and High Level Timeline The following are the project’s deliverables and target dates for their completion. The following

Project Charter


5

Project Deliverable Target Completion Date

Acceptance of Project Charter 12/2014

Requirements Document includes: Scope Matrix and Site Selection Criteria 01/2015

Site Analysis of Build and Buy Options 02/2015

Financial Model and Operating Plan 03/2015

Cost Benefit Analysis for Build and Buy Options 04/2015

Reference Design Guides for New Data Center 06/2015

Terms of Engagement Definitions for Option(s) 06/2015

Findings Report to Leadership 07/2015

The Findings Report will include the following:

Executive Summary Description of the site Costs for each institution for each option Management of Site/Governance terms

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Project Sponsors

The project sponsors have a demonstrable interest in the outcome of the project. The role of the project

sponsors include the following:

Project champion to the university

Legitimizes the project goals and objectives

Project authority to allocate project resources

Participates in high level planning of the project

Attend Project Sponsor meetings to provide feedback on project deliverables

Formal sign‐off of each project deliverable

Apprise their institutional leadership of project status

Name of Project Sponsor Title of Project Sponsor Institution

Nelson Vincent VP & CIO for Information Technology University of Cincinnati

Mary Beth McGrew AVP – Financial Planning+Design+Construction University of Cincinnati

Jay Brown Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer UC Health

Annette Marksberry Associate Provost & CIO, Information Technologies Xavier University

David Hickey

Vice President/Chief Information Officer

Cincinnati State Technical and

Community College

Project Co‐Chairs

The primary responsibilities include:

Project Charter


6

Plan and facilitate committee meetings

Coordinate activities of project

Assign tasks to committee members

Provide input to discussions as Subject Matter Expert (SME) for represented organizational unit

Identify required resources for the project

Provide guidance on project scope and schedule, including the order of implementation

Escalation point for project issues

Oversees development of final findings

Name Title of Key Stakeholder

Diana Noelcke AVP, UCIT Enterprise Shared Services

Megan Pfaltzgraff Director of Information Technology ‐ CEAS

Project Roles and Responsibilities

The project roles and responsibility are defined below:

Roles Responsibilities

All SME’s Provide input to discussions and decisions made as Subject Matter Expert for represented organizational unit

Complete assigned tasks as needed

Review and provide input on distributed materials, on‐going reports and final report

Project Manager Publish agendas; take and publish minutes

Schedule meetings

Develop and maintain project materials: Charter, WBS, Issues / Risks Logs

Name Title Role Institution

Mark Faulkner Sr. AVP, Innovation & Partnerships Data Center SME University of Cincinnati

Don Rainwater

Director, Systems & Device

Management

Data Center SME

University of Cincinnati

Kathy Qualls

Sr. Vice Provost, Business and

Financial Affairs

Finance SME


Ron Heile

University Engineer, Finance

Planning+Design+Construction

PDC SME


Patricia Krekeler UCIT, Director PMO Project Manager University of Cincinnati

Jamie Byrne UCIT, Project Manager Project Manager University of Cincinnati

Dominic Ferreri AVP, Client Services Client Services SME University of Cincinnati

Project Charter


7

Name Title Role Institution

John Hutton Professor Data Center SME College of Medicine, UC

Jay Brown

Senior Vice President and Chief

Information Officer

Data Center SME

UC Health

Jim McIntosh Director, IS&T Data Center SME UC Health

Judy Molnar

Executive Director, Infrastructure

and Technology Support

Data Center SME

Xavier University

Erik Ball

Director, Infrastructure and

Technology Support

Data Center SME

Xavier University

Randy Sprague

Enterprise and Infrastructure

Manager

Data Center SME

Cincinnati State

Ez Housh Consultant Data Center SME greensource Cincinnati

Communication Strategy

The project sponsors will communicate with their institutional leadership on an on‐going basis

throughout the life of the project. Each project deliverable will require leadership buy‐in from each

institution. The on‐going communication between the project sponsors and their leadership is essential

to the success of the project.

Project Charter


8

SPONSOR APPROVALS

Approval of the Project Charter indicates an understanding of the purpose and content described in this

deliverable. By signing this deliverable, each individual agrees work should be initiated on this project

and necessary resources should be committed.

Policy Title: Policy Number:

Electronic Information Technology (EIT) Accessibility

0.0.0

Category: Disability Services – Information Technology

Effective Date: March 2015 Prior Effective Date: N/A

Policy Owner: Sr. VP for Administration & Finance Sr. VP for Student Affairs & Provost VP and CIO for Information Technology

Policy applicable for: All members of the University of Cincinnati community

Enabling Acts: University Notice of Non-Discrimination Section 504/508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Responsible Office(s): Student Services – Disability Services Information Technology

University of Cincinnati Electronic Information Technology Accessibility Policy, page 1 of 5

Introduction

The University of Cincinnati is committed to supporting an information technology (IT) environment that is accessible to all, and in particular to individuals with disabilities. The university seeks to deploy information technology that has been designed, developed or procured to be accessible to people with disabilities, including those who use assistive technologies. By supporting IT accessibility, the university helps ensure that a broad population as possible is able to access, benefit from, and contribute to its electronic programs and services. This policy and related links establish minimum accessibility standards and expectations regarding the design, development, acquisition or use of information technology. Definitions Accessible – means a person with a disability is afforded the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as a person without a disability in an equally effective and equally integrated manner, with substantially equivalent ease of use. A person with a disability must be able to obtain the information as fully, equally, and independently as a person without a disability. Although this might not result in identical ease of use compared to that of persons without disabilities, it still must ensure equal opportunity to the educational benefits and opportunities afforded by the technology and equal treatment in the use of such technology. Disability – Federal laws define a person with a disability as “any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment.” Electronic Information Technology (EIT) – includes eLearning and information technology, equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment for which the principal function is the creation, conversion, duplication, automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display,


switching, interchange, transmission, reception, or broadcast of data or information. Examples include, but are not limited to, Internet and intranet websites, electronic content, electronic books and electronic book reading systems, search engines and databases, learning management systems, classroom technology and multimedia, personal response systems, telecommunication products, computers and ancillary equipment, software, mobility devices, information kiosks and transaction machines, videos, IT services, and multifunction office machines which copy, scan, fax documents and emerging technologies. Equal Access – means that Electronic Information Technology (EIT) or instructional materials are accessible or in the rare instances when accessibility is not technologically feasible to that EIT or instructional material, then the separate instructional material or technology must provide equally effective access to the program, activity or information. The alternative format or medium communicates the same information in as timely a fashion as does the original format or medium. When such exceptions are necessary then the means for alternative access and/or materials must be identified and responsibility for implementation assigned prior to use of the original format or medium. Instructional Materials – are items that are created, purchased or identified to serve in instruction and/or communicate information both in the curricular and non-curricular settings of a system institution. These items may include, but not limited to, textbooks in bound, unbound, kit or package form, library media, (print, non-print, and electronic resources), instructional software content, web/online content and learning objects, e-books, CD-ROM, DVD’s, videos, slides, films and filmstrips, learning laboratories, recordings, manipulative, consumables and ITV content. Section 504 and 508 Standards – a comprehensive set of general, technical and functional standards that apply to Federal agencies to make their electronic information technology accessible to individuals with disabilities. Reasonable Accommodation – any change in the work or educational environment or in the way things are customarily done that enables an individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment or educational opportunities, except when such accommodation would cause an undue hardship or would fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the business or course of study. Undue Hardship – with respect to accessibility accommodations, significant difficulty or expense, with a focus on the resources and circumstances in relation to the cost or difficulty to the university of providing a specific accommodation. Undue hardship refers not only to financial difficulty, but to accommodations that are unduly extensive, substantial or disruptive or those that would fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the business or course of study.


Policy

Any electronic information technology or instructional materials developed, procured, maintained, or used in carrying out university activities must be compliant with Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, other relevant local, state and federal laws and applicable university policies. All colleges, schools, departments, auxiliaries, research, and administrative entities that do not comply with the standards are responsible for any costs associated with remediating accessibility issues. Any information and technology must be accessible in accordance with official university standards and guidelines (see Related Links). The EIT accessibility coordinator responsible for the information or technology must undertake reasonable efforts to provide equal access in a timely manner upon becoming aware of non-compliance with university standards and guidelines. If the information or technology is required for coursework or for essential job functions, a timely review by the appropriate IT Governance committee will determine if appropriate alternatives are available and can be implemented. If the alternatives cannot be implemented in a timely manner, the appropriate IT Governance committee will consider requiring the removal of access to the information or technology. The IT Council, the university IT governance committee chaired by the university’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) and advisory to the CIO, may grant exceptions to this policy under circumstances including, but not limited to, undue hardship or if a reasonable accommodation can provide appropriate access. The IT Council will develop, review and approve all guidelines and standards related to this policy. The council will also evaluate and approve requests for exceptions. The university’s CIO or his/her designee may assign other, related responsibilities to other IT governance committees. The University Of Cincinnati’s accessibility standards and guidelines will evolve and change as newer technologies emerge. The standards and guidelines maintain a consistent framework for accessibility training and support services. Any University of Cincinnati employee responsible for electronic information technology or instructional materials produced, maintained, distributed, purchased and or used by the University of Cincinnati community will complete relevant training so they possess the required technical knowledge related to accessibility standards and guidelines for an individual with a disability. Employee and unit level roles and responsibilities for training, education and application include, but are not limited to, the following:

Deans, Directors and Managers will ensure all required staff receive training and education to ensure compliance with federal and state laws, regulations, and University of Cincinnati policies governing accessible technology.

Teaching Faculty will ensure accessibility of instructional materials to allow for equal access for all faculty and students, as documented in the university guidelines and plans for accessible technology.


Office of Purchasing will ensure compliance with the guidelines for electronic and information technology procurement, including the acquisition of all technology with a user interface.

Office of General Counsel will ensure provisions are included in university contracts to certify that any electronic and information technology resources provided, developed, maintained, or used complies with university accessibility standards and guidelines.

Information Technology Personnel and Content Managers will ensure accessibility of campus websites, web applications, and web content, as documented in the campus guidelines and plans for accessible technology.

Procedures The university’s EIT Accessibility Coordinator disseminates information on EIT accessibility matters to the operating units and facilitates cooperation among them on accessibility issues. The EIT Accessibility Coordinator will inform students, prospective students, employees, guests and visitors that they may report violations of the technical standard(s) used by the university, file a formal complaint through its Section 504 and Title II grievance procedure and/or directly contact the EIT Accessibility Coordinator with any accessibility concerns. EIT Accessibility Coordinator contact information is as follows: Name: Ronald Rateau Title: Assistive Technology Specialist Address: 210 University Pavilion Phone: 513-556-6823 TTY: 513-556-3277 Fax: 513-556-1383 Relay: 711 Email: [email protected] Additionally, the EIT Accessibility Coordinator's duties include the following:

Develop and maintain the EIT accessibility policy. Schedule and lead EIT Accessibility Coordinator meetings. Participate in employee groups dealing with accessibility issues. Participate in nationwide conferences and accessibility activities for continuing

education. Submit required certification and documentation to Office of Civil Rights as

required. Ensure that employees with disabilities have the appropriate assistive

technologies by directing them to (and providing transportation as necessary) to the various university resources that perform assistive technology needs assessments for individuals with disabilities or demonstrate the capabilities of assistive technology.


Provide sources for assistance for assessing and complying with EIT accessibility standards.

Retain documentation on undue burden determinations. Undue Burden Procedures University units requesting an undue burden waiver must submit the following documentation to the EIT coordinator.

Briefly describe the proposed system development or infrastructure improvement.

Describe the market research done to assess availability of Section 508-compatible products, if applicable.

Identify the specific Section 508 Access Board standard(s) that cannot be met. Quantify the effort in time and money to make the proposed system/resource

compliant with the Section 508 standards. Describe the alternative method that will be employed so that the employee or

user with disabilities can access the system and/or obtain information. Examples of alternative methods are voice, FAX, relay service TTY, Internet posting, captioning, text-to-speech synthesis, and audio description.

Include a review date when the undue burden decision will be reassessed. Provide the cost of the alternative method and its proposed implementation date.

Related Links: Electronic Information Technology Purchasing Policy Voluntary Product Accessibility Template Web Sites, Web Based Systems and Web Based Content Accessibility Standards & Guidelines Phone Contacts:

Office of the VP for Information Technology and CIO

556-2323

Office of the VP for Student Affairs 556-1233 Student Services – Disability Services 556-6823

Policy Title: Policy Number:

Electronic Information Technology Contracting & Purchasing Policy

0.0.0

Category: Technology Procurement

Effective Date: March 2015 Prior Effective Date: N/A

Policy Owner: Sr. VP for Administration & Finance Sr. VP for Academic Affairs & Provost VP for General Counsel

Policy applicable for: Faculty/Staff

Enabling Acts: Federal & State Compliance University Data Security & Compliance Policies

Responsible Office(s): Office of General CounselInformation Technology Purchasing

University of Cincinnati Full Name of Policy, page 1 of 4

Introduction

The University of Cincinnati values responsible acquisition, implementation and use of electronic information technology (EIT) resources. Electronic information technology products, services and systems are vital to supporting a diversity of compliance requirements in relation to the University of Cincinnati’s teaching, research and business activities. There are numerous federal and state laws and standards that govern the use, security and protection of personal information. These include, but are not limited to, export controlled research protected by ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and EAR (Export Administration Regulations), HIPAA/HITECH (federal law governing the privacy and security of personal health information), the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (federal law related to financial institutions), Red Flag Rules (federal regulation aimed at identifying and preventing identity theft), and the Payment Card Industry (PCI) – Data Security Standard (security standards for credit card transactions). Independently, section 504/508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (federal law related to accessibility) requires all electronic and information technology contracting and procurement to meet accessibility standards. Coordination of EIT related purchases and contracts are essential to maintaining an environment capable of supporting the diverse areas of federal and state laws and standards that guide the EIT environment. The goals of this policy are to ensure EIT purchases, leases, lease purchases, licensing, deployments and consultations meet or exceed university objectives for compliance, standardization, supportability, sustainability, compatibility and information security requirements. Definitions Electronic Information Technology (EIT) – includes Enterprise Resource Planning systems/platforms, any cloud service, eLearning, software, and information technology, equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment for which the principal function is the creation, conversion, duplication, automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching,

University of Cincinnati External Debt Policy, page 2 of 4

interchange, transmission, reception, or broadcast of data or information. Examples include, but are not limited to, Internet and intranet websites, electronic content, electronic books and electronic book reading systems, search engines and databases, learning management systems, classroom technology and multimedia, personal response systems, telecommunication products, computers and ancillary equipment, software, mobility devices, information kiosks and transaction machines, videos, IT services including cloud providers, and multifunction office machines which copy, scan, fax documents and emerging technologies.

Policy

This policy applies to all university contracts and purchases for electronic information technology software, hardware and services. In order to ensure compliance and accessibility of EIT products or services used at the University of Cincinnati, those responsible for making decisions about which products or services to procure must consider compliance and accessibility as part of the criteria for acquisition. This is especially critical for enterprise-level systems or technologies that affect a large number of students, faculty, and/or staff. Considering compliance and accessibility in procurement involves the following steps:

1. Vendors are required to provide information about the compliance and accessibility of their products or services.

2. The information provided by vendors must be valid, measured using a method that is reliable and objective.

3. Individual units making procurement decisions must be able to objectively evaluate the compliance and accessibility of products, and to demonstrate that they have the information provided by vendors.

The IT@UC Offices of Strategic Sourcing and Information Security along with the Office of General Counsel must review all technology software, hardware and services agreements/contracts, including online “click through” agreements, before being approved for purchase. Procedure(s)

1. Prior to purchasing any hardware, software, services or combination over $100,000 in total expense, an electronic Enterprise Architecture Submission Form (see Related Links) needs to be submitted to initiate the review process. This form may be linked to the purchase requisition. Purchases under $100,000 may forego submission of this form and follow standard Purchasing requisition procedures.

2. When the Purchasing Department receives any EIT purchase requisition for

hardware, software, services or combination it will verify that the IT@UC Offices of Strategic Sourcing and Information Security review all requests. These offices


will review for federal and state compliance matters including facilitating review by relevant subject matter experts within 3-5 business days. Upon certification by the above offices, Purchasing will process the purchase order.

3. As part of the review process, the IT@UC Office of Information Security may

conduct a security review with the department to determine if:

1. The hardware\software\services will be compatible with the existing university technology infrastructures.

2. The architectural design and security controls meet the necessary data security and compliance requirements for the hardware\software\services being acquired.

4. If there are any unresolved risks from the review, then the IT@UC Office of

Information Security will work with the department to document those situations via UC’s Risk Acceptance Process. Department heads desiring to proceed will need to "sign-off" acknowledging acceptance of the risk. Once signed by the requesting department, the IT@UC Office of Information Security will facilitate all appropriate "sign-offs" on the form based upon the risk level so the procurement process may continue.

5. It is expected that the IT@UC offices will initiate the review of the electronic

hardware\software\services acquisition form within 3-5 business days of the electronic submission of the form. The offices will work to accommodate any urgent university request within 24 hours of notice. If there are no conflicts or questions to be answered after initial review of the form each office will "sign-off" on the form without needing to contact the individual or department. Purchasing will be able to view the current queue of forms to be able to determine whether or not to continue the purchase order process.

6. The Office of General Counsel will conduct a review with the department to

determine if:

1. The agreement meets federal and state compliance requirements. 2. There is already a license agreement in-place to cover the software or

services. 3. The agreement(s) will conflict with any existing agreements. 4. The agreement requires incorporation of the university’s data security rider

language. 5. Purchase orders, RFP’s, and contracts for EIT include the following

clause: “Contractor acknowledges that no university funds may be expended for the purchase of information technology equipment and software for use by employees, program participants, or members of the public unless it provides blind or visually impaired individuals with access, including interactive use of the equipment and services, that is


equivalent to that provided to individuals who are not blind or visually impaired. In addition, Contractor acknowledges that such information technology equipment and software will provide equal and effective access to all individuals in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations, including, but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act.” Related Links: Enterprise Architecture Submission Form Data Security Rider Phone Contacts:

IT@UC Strategic Sourcing 556-XXXX IT@UC Office of Information Security 556-XXXX Purchasing - Technology Buyer 556-XXXX Office of General Counsel 556-XXXX

Office of the CIO 556-XXXX

University of Cincinnati Resolution Agreement

OCR Compliance Review #15-13-6001

In order to resolve Case Number 15-13-6001, the University of Cincinnati (the University) assures the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), that it will take the actions detailed below pursuant to the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 104, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. Part 35. A. Designation of Section 504/Title II Coordinator(s) and Notice of Nondiscrimination

Within 60 days of receipt of approval from OCR on a notice of nondiscrimination, but in no event earlier than December 31, 2014, the University will adopt and publish the notice of nondiscrimination, consistent with the requirements of the regulations implementing Section 504, at 34 C.F.R. § 104.8, and Title II, at 28 C.F.R. § 35.106, which will notify students, applicants, employees, and other relevant persons that it does not discriminate on the basis of disability in admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs or activities. The notice will include the name and/or position/title, office address, telephone number, and electronic mail (email) address of the person designated to ensure the University’s compliance with Section 504 and Title II. The notice will also state that the University does not discriminate on the basis of disability The notice will be included in any recruitment materials or other publications containing general information that the University publishes and makes available to students, employees, applicants or others in written form or through the University’s website. In addition, the notice will be in a readily available position(s) on the University’s website, and accessible to those with impaired vision. The University may comply with this action item by using the language set out in OCR's August 2010 publication, "Notice of Nondiscrimination." See http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/nondisc.html. The notice may be combined with other required notices concerning non-discrimination based on sex, race, national origin, color, and age as described in that publication. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: By November 28, 2014, the University will submit to OCR for review and approval a

draft notice of nondiscrimination consistent with Action Item A above. OCR will respond within 15 calendar days.

Within 60 calendar days of OCR’s approval of the notice of nondiscrimination, but in no event earlier than December 31, 2014, the University will publish the notice in any recruitment materials or other publications containing general information that the University publishes and makes available to students, employees, applicants or others in written form or through the University’s website. Until the next date of regularly

University of Cincinnati – Resolution Agreement – OCR Docket #15-13-6001

scheduled reprinting of published materials, electronic means may be used to provide the required notice. In such a case, the University will also initially notify students, employees, and other relevant persons of the notice of nondiscrimination through other effective means, which might include mail, email, or other a similar form of notice. The University will submit documentation verifying publication and the initial notification (if applicable).

B. Website Accessibility

Definition of “Accessible”: “Accessible” means a person with a disability is afforded the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as a person without a disability in an equally effective and equally integrated manner, with substantially equivalent ease of use. A person with a disability must be able to obtain the information as fully, equally, and independently as a person without a disability. Although this might not result in identical ease of use compared to that of persons without disabilities, it still must ensure equal opportunity to the educational benefits and opportunities afforded by the technology and equal treatment in the use of such technology.

1. By March 31, 2015, the University will draft and submit to OCR for review and approval

a policy to ensure information provided through the University’s website(s), online learning (or “e-learning”) environment, and course management systems (e.g. Blackboard) (collectively, “electronic and information technologies” or “EIT”), are accessible to students, prospective students, employees, guests, and visitors with disabilities, particularly those with visual, hearing, or manual impairments or who otherwise require the use of assistive technology to access information provided through its EIT (EIT Accessibility Policy). The EIT Accessibility Policy will, at minimum, accomplish the following:

a. identify and adopt the specific technical standard(s) the University will use to determine whether the EIT are accessible (e.g., Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 508), 29 U.S.C. § 794d, W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), or other standard or combination of standards that will render EIT accessible);1

b. designate at least one individual (EIT Accessibility Coordinator) and provide that

individual with sufficient resources and authority to coordinate and implement the EIT Accessibility Policy, the implementation and remediation plan described below, and all other commitments relating to accessibility within this Agreement; and

c. inform students, prospective students, employees, guests, and visitors that they

may report violations of the technical standard(s) used by the University, file a formal complaint through its Section 504 and Title II grievance procedure, and/or

1 This Agreement does not imply that conformity with Section 508, WCAG, and/or other electronic and information technology standard is either required or sufficient to comply with the requirements of either Section 504 or Title II. The technical standard(s) serve only as guidance with respect to whether the EIT is accessible.


contact the EIT Accessibility Coordinator with any accessibility concerns. The EIT Accessibility Policy will include the name and/or title, office address and telephone number, and email address of the EIT Accessibility Coordinator.

REPORTING REQUIREMENT: By March 31, 2015, the University will provide for OCR’s review and approval the EIT Accessibility Policy drafted consistent with Action Item B(1) of the Agreement. OCR will respond within 60 calendar days.

2. By March 31, 2015, the University will draft and submit to OCR for review and approval

an implementation and remediation plan (EIT Plan) to ensure adherence with its EIT Accessibility Policy. The EIT Plan will, at minimum, provide for:

a. an accessibility audit (EIT Audit) to be completed at regular intervals under the

direction of the EIT Accessibility Coordinator, during which information provided by the University through its electronic and information technologies is measured against the technical standard(s) adopted in the EIT Accessibility Policy. All problems identified through the EIT Audit will be documented, evaluated, and, if necessary, remediated within a reasonable period of time;

b. a procedure to ensure that EIT and information obtained through EIT provided or

developed by third parties is accessible. This procedure should direct administrators and staff to ensure that any University acquisition or use of EIT and third-party websites, services, or products will provide equal opportunity to the educational benefits and opportunities afforded by the technology and equal treatment in the use of such technology; and

c. annual training for any staff (e.g. administrators, faculty, support staff, student

employees) responsible for creating or distributing information with EIT to students, employees, guests, and visitors with disabilities, including, but not limited to, training on the EIT Accessibility Policy, the EIT Plan, and their roles and responsibilities to ensure that web design, documents, and multimedia content are accessible. The training will be facilitated, in whole or in part, by an individual with sufficient knowledge, skill, and experience to understand and employ the technical standard(s) adopted by the University.

REPORTING REQUIREMENT: By March 31, 2015, the University will provide for OCR review and approval the EIT Plan drafted under Action Item B(2) of the Agreement. OCR will respond within 60 days. 3. Within 60 calendar days of OCR’s approval of the University’s EIT Accessibility Policy

and the EIT Plan, but in no event earlier than June 30, 2015, the University will post the EIT Accessibility Policy and EIT Plan in a logical and readily identifiable location on its website and will provide notification of both to students, prospective students, employees, guests, and visitors. The notification will occur by written correspondence, email, and/or website notification and will further provide information of where the EIT


Accessibility Policy and EIT Plan are located on the University’s website and, alternatively, where individuals may request or obtain a copy of such documents.

REPORTING REQUIREMENT: Within 60 calendar days of OCR’s approval of the University’s EIT Accessibility Policy and the EIT Plan, but in no event earlier than June 30, 2015, the University will provide documentation to OCR verifying its implementation of Action Item B(3) of the Agreement, including a copy of the notification(s) and the URL (web address[es]) for the location of its EIT Accessibility Policy and EIT Plan.

4. Within 210 calendar days of OCR’s approval of the University’s EIT Accessibility Policy

and the EIT Plan, but in no event earlier than November 30, 2015, develop and conduct training on how to ensure accessibility in web design and implementation. The training will be provided by qualified personnel, or through an online training program vetted by said qualified personnel, to all staff involved in web design and implementation, including professors and other instructors who develop content for on-line instruction and/or post material on course management page(s)/portal(s). The training will include, at a minimum, training on the EIT Accessibility Policy, the EIT Plan, and the roles and responsibilities of University staff to ensure that web design, documents, course content, and multimedia videos or content are accessible.

REPORTING REQUIREMENT: Within 210 calendar days of OCR’s approval of the University’s EIT Accessibility Policy and the EIT Plan, but in no event earlier than November 30, 2015, the University will provide to OCR the name(s) and credentials of the individual(s) who conducted the training; a list of individuals, by name and title, who attended the training; and a copy of any training materials (e.g., pamphlets, presentation materials). 5. Within 120 calendar days of OCR’s approval of the University’s EIT Accessibility Policy

and the EIT Plan, but in no event earlier than August 31, 2015, the University will complete an initial EIT Audit to examine whether information provided through EIT is currently accessible, considering any compliance concerns identified through the above-referenced review process and its own evaluation measured against the technical standard(s) adopted by the EIT Accessibility Policy. The EIT Audit will include a directive to University staff to review their assigned web courses and course management page(s)/portal(s) (e.g. Blackboard) for accessibility, including guidelines for the review, resources available to staff for assistance and answers to questions regarding accessibility, a reporting mechanism to identify concerns and revisions, and a timeline by which necessary revisions must be completed. The University will document the results of the EIT Audit and develop a corrective action strategy based on the audit findings that includes relevant timeframes for completion, with a completion date for the final items not to exceed June 30, 2017.

REPORTING REQUIREMENT: Within 120 calendar days of OCR’s approval of the University’s EIT Accessibility Policy and the EIT Plan, but in no event earlier than August 31, 2015, the University will provide to OCR for review and approval, a copy of its EIT


Audit report and corrective action strategy, including the timeline for implementation of the corrective action strategy. OCR will respond within 30 calendar days.

6. Within 30 days of OCR’s approval of the corrective action strategy, including thetimeline for implementation of the corrective action strategy, the University will beginimplementation of the corrective action strategy to make its EIT accessible to individualswith disabilities, particularly students with visual, hearing, or manual impairments or whootherwise require the use of assistive technology to access the EIT. Should theUniversity choose to provide the information and services in some manner different fromthat used to provide information and services to others, the method chosen must permitstudents with disabilities to receive all the educational benefits provided by thetechnology in an equally effective and equally integrated manner, with substantiallyequivalent ease of use.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

By December 31, 2015, the University will submit documentation to OCR confirmingimplementation of the corrective action strategy consistent with establishedtimeframes, including certification to OCR that its EIT meets the technicalrequirements adopted in the EIT Accessibility Policy, and every three monthsthereafter will submit a progress report until completion. The certification may beobtained from a third-party web accessibility consultant or an employee of theUniversity with sufficient knowledge, skill, and experience to understand and employthe technical standard(s) adopted by the University. The University will also provideto OCR the bases for this certification.

By the June 15, 2016, 2017, and 2018, the University will provide a report to OCRdescribing its efforts for the 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 academic years,respectively, to comply with its EIT Accessibility Policy and EIT Plan, includinginformation documenting any compliance issues discovered through the monitoring,audits, or complaints and the actions taken to correct those issues.

The University understands that OCR will not close the monitoring of this Agreement until OCR determines that the University has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.4, 104.8, and 104.43, and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.106, 35.130, and 35.160, which were at issue in this compliance review. The University understands that by signing this Agreement, it agrees to provide data and other information in a timely manner. Further, the University understands that during the monitoring of this Agreement, OCR may visit the University, interview staff and students, and request such additional reports or data as are necessary for OCR to determine whether the University has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.4, 104.8, and 104.43, and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.106, 35.130, and 35.160, which were at issue in this compliance review. The University understands and acknowledges that OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings to enforce the specific


terms and obligations of this Agreement. Before initiating administrative enforcement (34 C.F.R. §§ 100.9, 100.10) or judicial proceedings to enforce this Agreement, OCR shall give the University written notice of the alleged breach and a minimum of sixty (60) calendar days to cure the alleged breach.

___________________________________________ ______________________________ President of the University of Cincinnati or Designee Date

Catalyst Update Gary Grafe was not able to attend the last meeting but he submitted a written update report that was shared with the IT Managers Committee.

Dell Contract Update Dom has been attending weekly status meetings with Dell, led by our new account representative, Janet Nacci. The meetings are producing some positive results and will move to a monthly schedule. Issues still needing improvement are:

Dell Premiere site still needs work

Delivery times for non “Smart Select” products still taking too long

Some devices not performing well and not configured according tospecifications

Dell doesn’t provide notice of changes that negatively impact imaging

Dom is scheduling a roadmap session with Dell in February, open to the whole campus community, probably located in TUC. There will be samples of new products and demonstrations. More information, including date and time, is forthcoming.

ITSM Charter and Scope Draft Update Erma Fritsche shared the updated IT Service Management charter and scope draft with the committee. The new draft incorporated feedback from the previous IT Managers Committee meeting. The committee discussed strategies for increasing support and buy in for ITSM concepts. Suggestions were:

Lead by example; start with incident management and communicatesuccesses to demonstrate process integrity

Scope the work to achievable goals

Scale up with consistent, observable success factors met or exceeded

Develop ITSM program workshopso Communicate time commitments for distributed groupso Define participation levels

Distributed Server Survey Core Services and Shared Infrastructure (CSSI) Committee wants to identify departmental servers and storage devices across all campus not currently housed in the data center but should be in the future. Dom asked the IT Managers to review and update their latest capital audit reports and submit them to him before the February meeting. The audit reports will be a good starting point and provide information for planning purposes to help determine the new data center size. UCIT Client Services will compile the data and bring it back to the IT Managers Committee for review before submitting it to CSSI. Dom will work with IT Managers and CSSI committee later to develop a process for moving all IT infrastructure equipment into the future data center.

IT Managers

Committee Update

for IT Council

January 28, 2015

Committee Chair Dominic Ferreri AVP – UCIT Client Services [email protected] (513) 556‐1477

Committee Co‐Chair Erma Fritsche Assistant Director ‐ UCIT Service Management [email protected] (513) 556‐1437

Committee Members

Christian Amann Andrew Becker Bruce Burton Greg Crase Jorin Edgerly William Frigge Yu‐Chin Fu Gary Grafe Wade Hedgren Don Hodges Dale Hofstetter John Hopkins Birsen Kaya John (Jay) Kreimer Daniel Kuhlmann John Lawson Harry LeMaster Emanuel (Lew) Lewis Steve Morales Diana Noelcke Kent Norton Megan Pfaltzgraff Don Rainwater Aaron Rucker Benjamin Stockwell Mel Sweet Eric Tribbe Brian Verkamp

Box Update Don Rainwater gave an overview of the project status and answered committee questions.

o 500 participants for the pilot; includes students, faculty, and staffo Use cases are being developed and ways of using the systemo Box is available for use, but not promotedo Communication strategy in developmento Formal announcement in Februaryo URL to activate account: Uc.edu/ucit/boxo Committee is working with Office of Information Security (OIS) to develop policies for restricted

data on Boxo Upgraded storage from 25 Gb to 50 GB quota to starto Students, faculty, and staff can keep accounts when they leave UC; policies and details will be

included in formal communicationso Don Rainwater is the point of contact for questions and concerns.

Data Center Update Megan Pfaltzgraff provided an update for the IT Managers Committee and will also attend IT Council January meeting to present the Data Center Task Force draft charter (attached).

Canopy Update Chris Edwards gave an in‐depth update on the activities and new staff positions in the UCIT Center for Excellence in eLearning and status updates for the pilot programs initiated out of the IT@UC Governance eLearning Topical Committee. Updates included (see Chris Edward’s IT Council Update report for details):

Transfer of roles and staff from Office of Provost to UCIT (Melody Clark and Janet Staderman)

New Video Specialist hired (Rachel Valerio)

Blackboard site visit and audit week of January 18

Creating a Blackboard tier 2 team; led by internal staff and hiring two new positions

Blackboard Leader Series training schedule

Kaltura pilot update

Echo360 pilot phase 1 evaluations and next steps

Plans for Echo360 pilot phase 2

Respondus pilot update

Backpack project update

eLearning Speaker Series next speakero January 29 in Alumni Center ‐ Speaker is Bill Rankin, Director of Learning at Apple

3T Conference at Clermont Schedule – Canopy team to present 10 sessions

CET&L Consultation Days

Web Conference Task Force final recommendations

1

Google Apps Update The pilot is limited to CECH as a test case to see if it is viable for wider adoption. Brian Verkamp (CECH) will gather pilot requirements. Their implementation plan is still being defined but they want to use Google Apps in their college. CECH will provide internal support for the pilot, which will mean only minor impact to the UCIT support teams during the initial setup phase. The pilot will use standalone apps only; email will not be enabled to minimize support requirements. CECH pilot results will help inform the decision for next steps.

Dell Contract Update Janet Nacci ([email protected]), a Cincinnati resident, is the permanent Dell representative for UC. Dom’s team is meeting weekly with her to improve overall contract performance. Dell is planning a roadmap presentation at UC in late January or early February. All students, faculty, and staff will be invited to attend. The results of the roadmap meeting and feedback from the campus community will inform future contract possibilities and options. Some recent improvements resulting from the weekly meetings are:

Most frequently purchased accessories are on main page with products Weekend and FedEx home deliveries have been removed. Order processing has been streamlined – preferred way is to use

premiere page and PCard. Whole premiere website is being revamped.

Server Hosting Analysis Dom has started the process with the IT Managers and is asking for their inventory data as is. The Service Management group will work with the data to create a general landscape of what equipment exists. Dom will share the compiled data in the CSSI February meeting.

Single Sign-on The task force will meet for the first time in January or early February. Anton asked the committee members to begin documenting their own frequently used websites to add to the study. Single sign-on across all websites may not be possible but one of the goals could be to develop a consistent look and feel with similar menu options, search functions, and the development of the

Core Services & Shared Infrastructure Committee Update for IT Council

January 28, 2015

Committee Chair Anton Harfmann Associate Dean, DAAP [email protected] (513) 556‐4933

Committee Co‐Chair Diana Noelcke AVP, UCIT [email protected] (513) 556‐6803

Committee Members Eric Anderson Nathan Eberhardt Jesse Fatherree Dom Ferreri Rachel Frankel Gary Grafe Rick Grant Ken Hirsh Tony Iacobelli Vinit Kumbharkar Kerry Overstake Pallavi Patel Stephen Young

2

knowledge base. The task force will work closely with OIS and UCIT developers to create a single-sign-off as well. This is being developed within Catalyst.

OIS IT Governance Topical Committee Membership Bo V. is asking for suggested members for the IT@UC Governance Information Security & Compliance topical Committee. Dom suggested Wade Hedgren from IT Managers, Gary Grafe volunteered to represent CSSI and Catalyst. Susan Albonetti’s (Assistant Treasurer) name was also suggested as another potential member.

Architecture Principles Gary G. and Anton will meet in early spring semester to finalize the Architecture Principles document. It needs to be clearly communicated that the Architecture Principles are guidelines and NOT a policy.

Catalyst Update The fit gap process is complete. The goal is to avoid modifying the core code whenever possible. During the fit gap process, the Catalyst team held 75 listening and informational sessions; determined 998 requirements; realized 910 fits; with only 88 gaps between what the new system offers and what UC needs. Policy and process changes can minimize business process and code changes. Overall the new system is close to being 96% of what UC needs out of the box.

MEETING MINUTES IT C - University of Cincinnati · Blue Ash Web, Feb 18, 12 to 1 p.m., 100 Walters...

Documents

Transcript of MEETING MINUTES IT C - University of Cincinnati · Blue Ash Web, Feb 18, 12 to 1 p.m., 100 Walters...